$3.6 Million an Hour—and Other Ways to Measure Elon Musk’s Fortune

The initial public offering for SpaceX could make Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire. Just how wealthy is the tech founder?

His fortune now stands at roughly $970 billion, mostly in stock, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Accumulating that amount over his career averages out to $992 a second.

Musk’s wealth includes $538 billion for his pre-IPO stake in SpaceX, $167 billion for his stake in Tesla , and another $150 billion or so for stock options in those companies he could exercise just about any time, the Journal analysis found.

Then there is $5 billion apiece for The Boring Company, which drills tunnels, and Neuralink, the brain-implant firm he founded, and $104 billion in property, aircraft and other investments and assets as estimated by Altrata, a wealth-intelligence firm

He has made about $3.6 million an hour over 31 years

Musk is 54 years old and co-founded the first of his many U.S. tech- and engineering-oriented companies in 1995, 31 years ago. To amass $970 billion in that time meant accumulating roughly:

An American household earning the median U.S. income ($83,730 in 2024) would have to work more than 11 million years to make his wealth.

To be sure, the success of Tesla and SpaceX also has made billions of dollars for investors who bet on Musk and made millionaires of employees who got shares in the businesses.

Ingrid Robeyns, a philosopher and economist, has written that the wealth of the world’s richest has soared so much it is nearly incomprehensible for laypeople to grasp.

She recently estimated that Musk would make about $4.2 million an hour in his career, if he worked 70 hours a week without vacations until he is 75 years old.

Musk, of course, is known for sleeping on factory floors and rarely taking vacations. After buying Twitter, he has said, his work exploded to more than 120 hours a week from about 80 hours before.

Buy 2.4 million U.S. homes or 10,000 private jets

Most of Musk’s wealth is tied up in his companies. He famously said in 2020 that he would “own no house” and sold off several California properties, only to later buy homes in Texas.

Musk can borrow billions against his holdings in SpaceX and Tesla, but much of his wealth is on paper—not cash he can easily spend.

Here are some things a person with $970 billion could do with that amount of money:

$970 billion is bigger than the yearly output of most countries

Musk’s net worth eclipses the annual economic activity of more than 125 countries, including Norway, Thailand, Argentina and South Africa.

His self-made fortune, built on electric vehicles rocket ships and artificial-intelligence ambitions amounts to about 3% of U.S. gross domestic product today. On that basis, he easily surpasses John D. Rockefeller , the richest American who ever lived before Musk.

A century ago, Rockefeller rode the wave of industrialisation by building Standard Oil into a behemoth, wielding influence over railroads and pipelines. The monopoly was ultimately broken up by the federal government.

Rockefeller amassed a fortune of about $1.4 billion by 1937—roughly 1.5% of U.S. GDP at the time. Here is how that compares in terms of today’s economy:

This explanatory article may be periodically updated.

Sources: Altrata (Musk net worth excluding options; Bezos, Ellison and Zuckerberg net worth); Securities and Exchange Commission filings (Tesla and SpaceX stock options); Census via St. Louis Fed (2024 median U.S. annual household income, first-quarter 2026 median U.S. house sale price); Forbes (NFL and NBA team values); Liberty Jet (G700 operating costs); International Monetary Fund (2026 GDP by country); Harvard Business School case study (Rockefeller wealth) undefined Photos: Getty Images (Musk); Associated Press (Musk, Bezos, NBA, NFL); Reuters (Zuckerberg, Ellison); Bloomberg (homes, jet)

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.